HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 11.28.2017 MINUTES
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
NOVEMBER 28, 2017 6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Mark Mace at
6:30 p.m. on November 28, 2017.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
_x Emelie Eaton _x Doug Poehls
x Bruce McGee x Richard Herr
x Chuck Dickerson x Scot Stokes
x Tom Nelson x Bill Mountsier
OTHERS PRESENT:
Heidi Jensen, CAO
Sam Painter, City Attorney
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director
Bethany Keeler, Clerk/Treasurer
Noel Eaton, City Planner
Public Input
There were none. — Dave Waggoner, 419 Maple Avenue, approached the podium and asked if this
was the appropriate time to speak. Heidi advised him that if his question or comment was in regards
to the agenda item "Discussion with City Attorney regarding election" then he would need to wait
until that item is presented and opened for public comment.
General Items
• Re-appointment of Judy Goldsby to Laurel Urban Renewal Agency for a four year term
ending December 31, 2021.
There was no discussion.
Executive Review '
• Resolution for Budget Amendment to FY 17-18
Bethany Keeler, Clerk/Treasurer, read the following memorandum to the Council. Memorandum is
attached to these minutes.
On October lOth the auditing team from Olness & Associates arrived at the City to begin the
Fiscal Year 2016-2017 closeout process and audit. During the closeout process Brent Olness
discovered that I had made an error on the current fiscal year's levy computation form. The
levy computation form uses the prior year ad valorem tax revenue (Reference Line 1), along
with the certified taxable value for the current year (Reference Line 5), to determine the
adjusted taxable value per mill (Reference Line 10) and the current year mill levy (Reference
Line 11). The error occurred on Reference Line 1 when I entered a higher prior year ad
valarem tax revenue value. This entry error had a snowball effect and generated a higher mill
Council Workshop Minutes of November 28,2017
levy value. This higher mill levy value was used to calculate the tax levy requirement
schedule. Using the incorrect mill levy value and requirement schedule would have placed the
City in an overmilling situation for next fiscal year by 31.9 mills.
I spent the next two days training with the auditing team on these forms and other aspects of
the budget. All of the amended figures for this budget amendment have been pre-approved by
my auditors, specifically Brent Olness.
I apologize for the inconvenience my errors have caused during this budget process. I can
assure you that I have learned from my errors, corrected them and will not be making them
again next fiscal year. I want to thank the City CAO for her unwavering support and my
Budget-Finance Committee for all of their input and support.
Bethany stated that she has contacted Yellowstone County to have the correct amount of mills
assessed. The City is currently assessing 154.54 mills, which is what is allowed this fiscal year.
Bethany asked that Council to look through the forms and contact her if there are any questions
regarding the amendment.
Tom stated that Budget/Finance Committee was presented the information at last Tuesday's meeting.
They did not fmd any improprieties.
Emelie commended the Clerk/Treasurer as this was her first budget and she did not have anyone with
first-hand knowledge to assist her in this process. She has corrected paperwork and sought the advice
of the auditors. Emelie thanked the Clerk/Treasurer for all the hard work she had done on the budget
and the steep learning curve along the way.
• Resolution to award engineering contract to KLJ
Heidi stated the contract with Great West Engineering is coming to a close on December 31, 2017.
The City did go out for a Request for Qualifications. The City Planner, Public Works Director, and
CAO sat on the selection committee. The City received eight applications, the committee chose to
interview six.
Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson (KLJ) was the top choice for all members of the selection committee. KLJ
offers a depth of services that the other firms were not able to provide. They have a government
relations team, strong planning department, strong and seasoned water department, and a host of other
things the City can use.
Heidi stated that she has received a draft engineering contract from KLJ. She is working with Carl
Jackson, PE who is the Client Services Manager and QA/QC. Council will have the contract in their
packet for next week.
Heidi stated in the past Council has been concerned only having one engineering firm for the City.
This contract will list KLJ as the City's on call engineers, but in the event a project is not their
specialty or the City feels another firm can provide better service on a project then the City can go out
for that selection. This does not prevent the City from seeking additional services.
2
Council Workshop Minutes of November 28,2017
Tom stated while attending the Montana League of Cities and Towns he talked with other mayor's
and engineering firms regarding only having one contracted engineering firm.
Heidi stated that this contract does leave it open for a case by case basis. In the event another firm is
needed then at that point there would be another contract as well.
• Resolution to approve Union 316 contract FY 2017, 2018, 2019
Heidi described how the negotiation process went this year. The City used interest based bargaining to
negotiate the Police Union contract last year. The Public Works Union was offered the same type of
bargaining process. Interest based bargaining allows for all parties to sit down with a mediator form
the State and discuss what will work for all parties. This process went very well.
Heidi stated that during this process with both unions she has learned more about what each
department does; the employees within each department and what is important to them.
Some changes of note are the agreed upon $.45/$.45/$.35 increase on each year. There is now a cap
on pay out for comp time at the end of the year. This year it is a 80 hour pay out max while next year
there will be no pay out with a cap of 100 hours for comp time. There will be additional compensation
for the Utility Workers and Court Clerks.
All were in unanimous agreement upon completion of the negotiations. The State mediator was
pleased with the outcome.
• Discussion with City Attorney regarding election
Sam Painter, City Attorney, stated as requested by the City Council he has prepared a memorandum,
which is attached to these minutes, regarding the current situation of the Mayor-Elect being a City
Employee. The question is now whether or not a City Employee can serve as Mayor. The short
answer is no, you cannot serve as Mayor and be a City Employee. This is not a new issue for the City,
this came up during the 2013 election when there were two employees running as either a write-in or
on the ballot for positions of either Mayor or City Council. This issue was dealt with then and no one
requested a written legal opinion, because those running did not win the election.
Sam pointed out that every city in the State of Montana is not identical, therefore, you cannot
compare the City of Laurel to another city. The City of Laurel's Charter vests the authority, the
complete executive authority, in the mayor position. The Mayor has authority to fire employees of the
City. An employee elected as Mayor is essentially the employee and the employer, which is the
situation addressed in the Attorney General's opinion. The positions are incompatible. The Mayor-
Elect has the difficult decision between his City employment and the Mayor position.
Rodger Geise, 211 4ih Avenue, questioned if the Mayor-Elect steps down as a City Employee he can
become Mayor.
Sam stated correct.
Mr. Geise also questioned if the Mayor-Elect does not step down as a City Employee what actions
will occur.
3
Council Workshop Minutes of November 28,2017
Sam stated that when there is a vacancy in the Mayor position the City Council appoints a Mayor. The
process has always been the City advertises, applicants send in a letter of interest, the applicant is
interviewed in front of the Council, and the Council appoints a new Mayor via majority vote. The
term of an appointed Mayor is until the next City General Election, which is in two years. At that time
the appointed Mayor would need to run for office for the remainder of the four year term.
Roy Voss, 1024 13�" Avenue, questioned if the memorandum was published publicly, such as in the
paper.
Sam stated that the memorandum was issued Monday November 27, 2017. It was sent to the Council,
sent to Mr. Waggoner and made available to the public.
Mr. Voss stated that he has observed since Election Day that it appears that those recently voted out
are the ones causing the most issues. He requested that the public be informed and up-to-date on what
is going on. He reminded Council that elected officials represent the people that elect them.
Dave Waggoner, 419 Maple Avenue, stated that he received this memorandum at 2 p.m. from his
supervisor. He stated that he has not run for Mayor in a previous election, the memorandum states that
he has. He stated that he has not had any discussions with his supervisors, this memorandum states
that he has. He stated that his union representative has not had any discussions with him, this
memorandum states that he has. He stated that Fran had run for City Council and had not received
anything from the City regarding his eligibility. He stated that he would not have paid the $100 fee to
run for Mayor had he known he could not do both jobs concurrently.
Mr. Waggoner stated that he was trying to do what was right for the City of Laurel. Come Election
Day the City's residents elected him in to make a change that was his only intention. He did not want
to cause any trouble, that he wasn't running a second time just to stir things up. He has a heart for
Laurel and sees what needs to get done and what is not getting done. That's why he ran for Mayor,
and why the people elected him as Mayor. He stated he does not want to cause any problems for the
citizens, and he could probably get a lawyer and tie this up, but questioned what good that would do
because the citizens would have to pay for this. He also stated that he talked with the Attorney
General and was directed to the last paragraph of the opinion, which states that it will be on a case by
case basis. Mr. Waggoner stated he has asked the Attorney General if it was illegal for a City
Employee to be Mayor of the City. The Attorney General's response was absolutely not, that if an
individual is elected and the Council goes for it, there is nothing illegal about it. He stated the opinion
brought forward that there is a potential conflict. Mr. Waggoner did not run to just cause conflict, he
believes that the eight members of the Council have the say over the Mayor position.
Chuck stated that he elected not to run again this year after spending a number of years on the
Council. He clarified that Mr. Waggoner had stated that he has a heart for the City and wants to
represent the people. He questioned if"double dipping" is representing the people by getting paid by
the tax payers to be a City Employee...
Mr. Waggoner interrupted Chuck and responded to put the $10,000 into the streets.
Chuck continued, prior to tonight Mr. Waggoner had not stated his feelings on receiving
compensation for both positions. Anyone running for this type of position should read what is legal
and what is illegal.
4
Council Workshop Minutes of November 28,2017
Mr. Waggoner responded that it is not illegal.
• CouncilIssues:
o Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event
Heidi stated that the punch list is being completed. A letter was sent to DES today requesting an
extension on the worksheet until March of 2018. The extension allows work to be finished without a
penalty for work not completed by December 31, 2017. The City is currently using the new intake.
The weir at the old intake has not been removed due to high water levels. The weir removal project
will move forward once it is safe to do so. It will be a lasting piece of infrastructure of the City.
Bruce questioned if the extension will automatically be granted.
Heidi stated that yes, in the past the City has not had any issues obtaining an extension. DES had
contacted her today and asked for the City to request an extension till March of 2018.
Tom questioned if the City is expected to request any further extensions on this project.
Heidi stated that the City only asks for an extension if the work is not completed. The auditor will not
be available to start the audit until after the first of the year.
Tom questioned if the audit will be completed before the extension deadline of March 31, 2018.
Heidi stated that the auditor did not specify.
o Stripping on SE 4th Street
Heidi gave clarification that the product heated into the pavement is thermoplastic. The City put down
epoxy paint which is a thicker more durable paint product, it should last up to three years. Using
thermoplastic for such a large area would not have been cost effective. The City chose to go with a
more durable paint and repaint every three years. This will continue to be paid out of the TIF district
on a maintenance rotation schedule.
Chuck stated that his understanding after the Public Works Committee meeting was that thermoplastic
was going to be used to stripe the street. After Heidi's clarification regarding cost savings, he
understood why the change was made.
Other Items
There were none.
Review of draft Council agenda for December 5 2017
There was no discussion.
Attendance at the December 5, 2017 Council meetine
Council President Poehls will be absent at the next Council meeting.
Announcements
Scott questioned what kind of damage will be caused by the trucks going up and down the streets.
5
Council Workshop Minutes of November 28,2017
Heidi stated that the trucks are traveling on state routes and any damage that occurs on those routes
will be fixed by the State. Kurt has been recording the trucks running over curbs and sidewalks and
those trucks will be reported to Motor Carrier Services (MCS), as requested by MDT. The City has
asked repeatedly for the contractor to pick up rocks as this project continues. This will be reported to
MCS as well.
Bill asked what happens once turned into MCS.
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, stated he sent an email to the State regarding the rocks, dirt,
and mud coming off of these trucks. He received an email back stating it is out of the scope of their
project and is not in the project documents. He was instructed to turn the contractor in for
enforcement. He stated that he did get in contact with the contractor to resolve this issue, they have
attempted to clean up the rocks. Kurt will set up a meeting with the Police Chief and MCS to discuss
next steps.
Tom reminded the Council that Cemetery Commission will not be meeting in December. Cemetery
Commission will lose both the Chair and Vice Chair. The Ordinance states that the commission must
meet every three months. The third month will be January of 2018. He stated that he will turn in his
binder of documents to the Administrative Assistant for the next Chair's reference.
Bruce asked Noel to give an update on the Master Plan.
Noel stated that the Master Plan Committee is finalizing the draft for the Master Plan. The Council
should expect a draft by the middle of December with a public hearing in mid-January.
The council workshop adjourned at 7:12 p.m.
Respectful submitted,
Brittney Mo n
Administrative Assistant
NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the
listed workshop agenda items.
6
CITY HALL • re� ,
��sW.�sr.st. i of Lau
PUB WORK5. 628 4796 � , � .
y ����
Pw�F.ax:62s-zzai P.O. Box 10 '� �,���_��
WATER OFFICE: 628-7431 Laurel,Montana 59044
WTR FAX:628-2289
MAYOR: 628-8456 ' '
DEPARTMENT
November 28, 2017
To: City of Laurel, City Council Members
From: Bethany Keeler, Clerk/Treasurer
RE: Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Budget Amendment
On October 10th the auditing team from Olness & Associates arrived at the City to begin the
Fiscal Year 2016-2017 closeout process and audit. During the closeout process Brent Olness
discovered that I had made an error on the current fiscal year's levy computation form. The
levy computation form uses the prior year ad valorem tax revenue (Reference Line 1), along
with the certified taxable value for the current year (Reference Line 5),to determine the
adjusted taxable value per mill (Reference Line 10) and the current year mill levy (Reference
Line 11). The error occurred on Reference Line 1 when I entered a higher prior year ad valorem
tax revenue value. This entry error had a snowball effect and generated a higher mill levy
value. This higher mill levy value was used to calculate the tax levy requirement schedule.
Using the incorrect mill levy value and requirement schedule would have placed the City in an
overmilling situation for next fiscal year by 31.9 mills.
I spent the next two days training with the auditing team on these forms and other aspects of
the budget. All of the amended figures for this budget amendment have been pre-approved by
my auditors, specifically Brent Olness.
I apologize for the inconvenience my errors have caused during this budget process. I can
assure you that I have learned from my errors, corrected them and will not be making them
again next fiscal year. I want to thank the City CAO for her unwavering support and my Budget-
Finance Committee for all of their input and support.
Sincerely,
r�—
Bethany Keeler
Clerk/Treasurer
City of Laurel is an EEO Employer
Equal Housing Opportunity
Determination of Tax Revenue and Mill Levy Limitations �����
Section 15-10-420, MCA
- � AGGREGATE OF ALL FUNDS
FYE JUNE 30, 2018
ENTITY NAME: CITY OF LAUREL
Auto-Calculation
Reference Enter amounu in (�f completing manually
enter amounts as
Line yellow cells instructed)
(1) Enter Ad valorem tax revenue ACTUALLY assessed in the orior vear
tJE4J-PLEASE READ INSTRI}CTIQfJS BEFC?RE ENTERiNG $ 1,444,886 f 7,444,886
(2) Add: Current year inflation adjustment @ 0.59% $ 8,525
(3) Subtract: Ad valorem tax revenue ACTUALLY assessed in the qrior vear for Class 1 and 2
property,(net and gross proceeds)-(enter as neyativel
NEW-P�EASE REA�INSTKt1G i isJiVS B�PC)SZG Et�]TERING. � - � -
_��)+(z)+�3) Adjusted ad valorem tax revenue $ 1,453,411
ENTERING TAXABLE VALUES
(5) Enter'Total Taxable Value'-from Department of Revenue Certified Taxable Valuation Information
form,line#2 $ 8,977,185 S 8,977.185
(s) Subtrect:'Total Incremental Value'of all tax increment financing districts(TIF Districts)-from
Department of Revenue Certified Taxable Valuation Information form,line#6
{enter as neya�ivi:) � (�@g,�#2�I1 � (998.424)
_�5��+�6� Taxable value per mill(after adjustment for removal of TIF per mill incremental district value)
a �,s�s.�s,
(8� Subtract: 'Total Value of Newly Taxable Property'-from Department of Revenue Certified Taxable
Valuation Information form,line#3(enter as iiegative� $ {183,351} E (183.351)
(9) Subtract: 'Taxable Value of Net and Gross Proceeds,(Class 1 8 2 properties)'-from Department
of Revenue Certified Taxable Valuation Information form,line#5
(enter as negative) � 5 -
(10) Adjusted Taxable value per mill
_(7)+(S)+(9) S 7,795.410
(��) CURRENTYEARcalculatedmilllevy 186�
=(4)i(�o)
(12) CURRENT YEAR calculated ad valorem tax revenue
_(7)x(11) S 1,487,560
CURRENT YEAR AUTHORIZED LEVY/ASSESSMENT
(13) Enter total number of carry forward mills from prior year
FOC�FY18�UC�GETS.�1_G:f.:(_ �NTER tiNi_Y THE#QF MILLS LEE'T[�EF(IND�RC3M�Y17.
NE11V-P�EA$F:F2EAD Tf�E'�J�?RtJG�i Et�NS SEFQRE E�lTERING. 0.00 OAO
(14) Total current ear authorized mill le
=(11)+(13) y �y,�ncluding Prior Years'carry forward mills ��,�;d�
(15) Total current year authorized ad valorem tax revenue assessment
=(7)x(14) a 1,487,560
CURRENT YEAR ACTUALLY LEVIED/ASSESSED
Enter number of mills actually levied in current year
(16) (Number should equal total non-voted mills,which includes the number of carry forward mills,
actually imposed per the final approved current year budget document.Do Not include voted or
permissve mills imposed in the current year.) 786.44 186.44
(��) Total ad valorem tax revenue actually assessed in current year
=(7)x(16) $ 1,487,560
RECAPITULATION OF ACTUAL:
(18) Ad valorem tax revenue actually assessed
'=(10)x(16) $ 1,453,376
(19) Ad valorem tax revenue actually assessed for newly taxable property $ 34,184
(20) Ad valorem tax revenue actually assessed for Class 1 8 2 properties(net-gross proceeds) $ -
(21) Total ad valorem tax revenue actually assessed in current year
=(18)+(19)+(20) b �,as7,ssa
(22) Total carry forward mills that may be levied in a subsequent year
=(14)-(16) (Number should be equal to or greater than zero.A(negative)number indicates an over levy.) ���y
,
.• .--� N Vl 01 Ot �..� pl V p �
V1 � R � � M N �
M
N � N �
R K w � '-1 rl rl
� d }
� T O V O O O r�ii � p O
ti } m N ^
\ .N-� � �j � � ti ,.M.� � p�p .-�-i O
�p � � W �,�y .�-i N
II
�
0 O O
tn n�'1 �N O�i O � �
n w .--i rh O O �n ri � N
� Q � rn 00 C V O N O �
� O O � O ~ M � M �--I lD
� � V
W �
� � � N
t/? aA VT iA v1 � � �
�
� �
vNi � u� O O O O I� >
N M O '-I O V M N � J
} Q � O �O tD O N V � � �
F Z cp Hi �o W � � � N �
V
� Q � O tD � N � „�y � .�-1
� � � � ~ 0
N N N N N � � � H
V O � � � �
O �
O
� W M O 00 N V1 � � O
.� m � m
X K X � t� � � 00 �-'1 n �
� � F" � t�0 M o�0 O � � � vi
�y N �"�
K W �"�
t0 d K .--i
� N � N � � � �
�
O C W Om � W p 1�
X � O O N n rn N
'i m �
J F = � � N O � � N N
� ^
W � � W � m N ~ ~ N ~ ~
= Z � � '--I
�"� � N � N � � � �
N
L ~
7 W �
J � � V �D n g � � p N
W 1� C
I� rj pp W
�F W J C .-. 1�
� � ~ fd � N lD W � O N ^ p�j �
T � �ry 2 J 'r+ 00 f-I 1� V 00 � M
._� � � � g � _ � �, � � g ,�
V W S Q in � V M Ql N N
� � J � ^ rl
} a �
> � � � � � � � �
w
J
O
F H M �N O�i O 0 Q � �
N W ~ N O � l� � O
O
O N
} Q � m o0 V C O N .--i �
II � � � � � m 00 � 'ti l0
.-a � V �
� � � m N
.�... � �
� lA t/T 1? lA t/T � � �
M �N Ol O Q i �
W p
� O o0 Oi O � •--�
W = K M C Ql C N I�
� l7 �' "' p ti rri vi n^�
� � w n m rn �
� �
m �
V/ VT aA Vf Vf Vl t/1
� O O
O O � O O O O � � �
I� tn •--i iA •--� O tn O a .--i
�D 00 Q V�1 K V O O � O ^
W � .--I �
O O1 � �' O .-1 a: ^ a° � � N � 00 m �
m �
r; oo � a � .��, � e�n a � � � N
N Vf � a �' � � � � � � � � � � Y � � � [L
[i LL
: O m i0 m m N � � �
: O �
: � a, a, m d d « 2 � > 2 '' 2
: 1� N U � W C ydi W � N � i+ 01 � H
W C W W N W 01 W 2 O W � N
� Vf Wc C C f0 C C � OC �' 1' S 1' � L K u �
: C LL � � d > a Q N
� a vi C 2 H U' J `o
Z w � Q �
� � = E �
o : o Z J c E z o � � E � o. �
�o ' LL n�. a "' ."'-i
? c -' 0 � u° a t7 � u, � �
l0 O � W � W U �
� C
� � } g O O O O e-� O ��if ^ � � � � Y!
� �I j O e�-I M M .-N-I � M Q � 41 N �
� � — Z Z .--1 N N N 1� � � d Q
Q H � LL Z d VI W J
Determination of Tax Revenue and Mill Levy Limitations /����
Section 15-10-420,MCA M�d��
AGGREGATE OF ALL FUNDS
FYE JUNE 30, 2018
ENTITY NAME: CITY OF LAUREL
Auto-Calculation
Reference Enter amounts in (lf completing manually
enter amounts as
Line yellow cells instructed�
(1) Enter Ad valorem tax revenue ACTUALLY assessed in the�rior vear
� $ 1,197,663 $ 1,197,663
(2) Add: Current year inflation adjustment @ 0.59°/, $ 7,066
(3) Subtract: Ad valorem tax revenue ACTUALLY assessed in the�rior vear for Class 1 and 2
property,(net and gross proceeds)-(enter as negative�
� - . $ $ -
(4) Adjusted ad valorem tax revenue
_(�)*(Z)*(3) $ 1,204,729
ENTERING TAXABLE VALUES
(5) Enter'Total Taxable Value'-from Department of Revenue Certified Taxable Valuation Information
form,line#2 $ 8,977,185 $ 8,977.185
(s� Subtrect:'Total Incremental Value'of all tax increment financing districts(TIF Districts)-from
Department of Revenue Certified Taxable Valuation Informafion form,line#6
(enter as negative) ,
s 858,d24' $ (998.424)
_�5��+�6� Taxable value per mill(after adjustment for removal of TIF per mill incremental district value)
$ 7,978.761
(8) Subtract: 'Total Value of Newly Taxable Property'-from Department of Revenue Certified Taxable
Valuation lnformation form,line#3(enter as negative) $ 183,351 $ (183.351)
(9) Subtract: 'Taxable Value of Net and Gross Proceeds,(Class 1 8 2 properties)'-from Department
of Revenue Certified Taxab/e Valuation Information form,line#5
(enter as negative) � $
(10) Ad'usted Taxable value er mill
_(�)+(8)+(9) � p
$ 7,795.410
(11) CURRENT YEAR calculated mill levy
=(4)/(1�)
(12) CURRENT YEAR calculated ad valorem tax revenue
=(7)X(1�)
$ 1,233,038
CURRENT YEAR AUTHORIZED LEVY/ASSESSMENT
�13) Enter total number of carry forward mills from prior year
_ . . ,� u
(14) Total current ear authorized mill le
_����+�13� y vy,including Prior Years'carry forward mills
(15) Total current year authorized ad valorem tax revenue assessment
=(7)x(14) $ 1,233,038
CURRENT YEAR ACTUALLY LEVIED/ASSESSED
Enter number of mills actually levied in current year
(16) (Number should equal total non-voted mills,which includes the number of carry forward mills,
actually imposed per the final approved current year budget document.Do Not include voted or
permissve mills imposed in the current year.)
(��� Total ad valorem tax revenue actually assessed in current year
=(7)x(16) $ 1,233,038
RECAPITULATION OF ACTUAL:
(�$)
'=(10)x(16) Ad valorem tax revenue actually assessed
$ 1,204,703
(19) Ad valorem tax revenue actually assessed for newly taxable property $ 28,335
(20) Ad valorem tax revenue actually assessed for Class 1&2 properties(net-gross proceeds) $ _
(Z�� Total ad valorem tax revenue actually assessed in current year
=(18)+(19)+(20)
$ 1,233,038
(22) Total carry forward mills that may be levied in a subsequent year
=(14)-(16) (Number should be equal to or greater than zero.A(negative)number indicates an over levy.)
,�
.--I N ll1 01 Ol � � Q
� � � > � � � rn m 4 a
� ¢ a J N io � m r� oi
•-I d W ~ �-�i N pp
Y 'y
� .-�-I O W V O V�i v�i p pO Q1
O
\ e-1 J � � V V Ol V V N N 00
ip ^ C y� N .--I � N
II e-I C � �
01
w N O v/ V vl 1� N V
n
V I- � � � M lD 00 01 00 l0
II m p� � � � M M N
pp O O Ol N '-I ry � �
v � � N
4A Vf Vl N V1 N VT V}
� I� � N N 00 0�0 N N d
� � 7
� � w O O V N O � ry ^ J
± Q � tD �A O '-I 00 00 N Ol
� O � V V V L�l1 W V � N c
F- W 1� .-i N N p C
^ C M
N �
Y
�' V1 N VT VT VT N t/? V1 F
� lv1 lO V L(1 l.f) N 00
0 N I� I� �-i fV W h u1 L!1 ll1
� .--I � W .--i 00 iD N 00 I� 00 I�
�
x �y�j X Z lND O^i O t0 W O 00 O�l Ot
� a a w
O ~ > rn ^ m .-�-� � m o�i ,-�i .-�i
� a � m .-i rv .�-�
.r '-i
�' VT lA N V? V?VT Vl �A VT
O
O O O O O O O O
O X w W N t+t .-^-i O N M O
� � Z o1 �n O Lr1 O a1 m O
Q � Z W � O O o0 m tD O O
W O > ^ v .� M .-i v p
= Z w o
� � N N
N 1? N VT VT N V} VT V1 lA
i H
� Z �
�p w
J � O � MO O � O � l0 u1
O K � C � O1
� m d � N M O V1 M iD pt �
Y � � �^ N Q � ." rn O m v1 O .-M-� v1 �D
v w ` V a U � 00 V V Ot M V N �
� N
; Q V � �-i
w V? Vl VT V? �/T Vl t/T VT
J
X
~ Z N O �n V v/ V � O
� W V Ol � I� Q� tvt N .-�-i
± Q � ✓1 ln M l0 00 V ll1 I�
~ O � M 01 01 V1 � � tf1 lD
��. H � Q� N .-1 N K1
M U V` lV
W
� N VT V1 VT Vf VT tA N
� N O Vt c{ � � y�j
W
W = � �D 01 � I� N M N
� 01 .y pl lp W V V
N L7 Q N N O N .-1 h N
� U w ^ N M M .--1
� K
m
VT lA VT lA Vl N VT
O O Z O O O O O O O O
O
� � F 00 O N O tD O O .--I
� ""� Q u? V V O O O .--i I�
01 I� � K Ol .--I Ql .--i �l1 N .--I 00
N I� � d tl1 I� 00 � 00 � V t0
O � ~ a � �'y N N N N M N °� m N p
�n � a � � � � � �
�� � a �„ � ,,, T � } ,,, � ,,, � ,,, � ,,, } ,,, }
LL LL LL W W LL LL
: �
: � m m m m m m m io
` m > Z > 2 > > � i °= i
Y
: � w � w w _ w d � w p ,�' m '� m
: an W � K �o C a Y � > p� a� w 2 O N O w
c �, 2 C F- L K T K
: � LL � m '- ai � � u
� Z w ia = 2 '� � C J. a > aci
o s` h � J v0
�6 � � Z J C E C O � w � > Q. _ Ol
m O � p (.7 U a C7 LL w d J Q � w
> ., a w �
H
� � Y 7L �j O 001 On n ON � n � p� � p
N � - � O .--I M M .--1 � M 00 N
Q � � ? Z e-I N N N h w N w I� � N
d VI W
CITYHALL �Z� Of Laurel a J J
I 15 W. 1 ST ST. v
PUB.WORKS:628-7496 J �
WATER OFC.:628-7431 �Q I�-�r�
COUKT:628-1964 P.O. BOX 10 ,, A �[i v'
FAX G28-2241 Laurel,Montana 59044 ��
�.
Office of the Ci:y Attorney
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Mark Mace and City Council Members
From: Sam S. Painter
Date: November 27, 2017
Re: Legal Opinion: City Employee serving as elected Mayor
This memorandum and opinion is in response to the written complaints you
received regarding the results of the recent mayoral election. As you are aware, Dave
Waggoner was elected Mayor as a result of the November 7, 2017 election. Mr.
Waggoner is to formally take office January 2, 2018. I note the complaints were filed
by two current members of the city council who arc residents of the City and votcrs in
the election. The complaints question the ability of Mr. Waggoner, an employee of
the City, to accept and serve as the mayor while he continues to work as an employee
of the City. The short answer is no, based on Montana law Mr. Waggoner may not
serve as mayor and remain a City employee. As a result, Mr. Waggoner rnust choose
to remain an employee and decline to serve as Mayor or alternatively accept the
Mayor position and resign his employment.
As you are aware, the City faced this identical issue in the previous mayoral
election with the same employee. Mr. Waggoner ran for mayor in the previous
election but was unsuccessful. Prior to the election, City Staff, including Mr.
Waggoner's Supervisors, had discussions with Mr. Waggoner regarding the
prohibition of an employee serving as elected mayor. Furthermore, I previously had
discussions with Mr. Waggoner's union representatives regarding the requirement
that if successful he would have to resign his position. During this election cycle, the
same or similar discussions were had. Mr. Waggoner's response was identical to his
previous position. Mr. Waggoner claims to have an attorney that provided him a
contrary opinion. Baseci on that opinion, which no one has seen, Mr. Waggoner
reportedly intended to legally challenge the City's position. At this point,this issue is
ripe and must be resolved. For your convenience I am enclosing the documents I
relied upon as a basis for my opinion. I suggest you provide this letter to the
complainants and Mr. Waggoner and request his response. If Mr. Waggoner agrees
to resign tiis employment prior-to Jaiivary 2, 2018, the issue is moot. On the other
hand, if 1VI�-. Waggoner chooses to challenge the City's position and refuses to resign
his employmenl and serve as mayor, an appropriate court action can be filed in
advance to obtain a court order resolving the issue to avoid any disiuption of the
City's operations. Be advised, City Ordinance provides that a vacancy of an elected
office can be detennined by a competent tribunal. Laicrel Mtnzicipal Code, Section
2.12.060 K. I would interpret"competent tribunal"to mean a court of competent
jurisdiction such as Montana's 13`h Judicial District Court,Yellowstone County
which is a court of general jurisdiction that would certainly constitute the appropriate
venue to issue an order to resolve this case.
As most are well aware, the City's legal position is based upon an opinion issued
by Montana's Attorney General on October 13, 1998. 47 Op. Att'y Ge�7. No. 19
(1998). An Opinion issued by Montana's Attorney General constitutes the law for the
State of Montana on the particular issue until overiuled by a Montana Court or
withdrawn or superseded by a subsequent Attorney General Opinion. In this case, the
Attorney General's Opinion the City relies upon has not been overruled by a court
and as a consequence, remains valid and enforceable Montana law. Therefore, based
on the Attorney General's Opinion cited herein and thc facts of this case, the
conclusion is clear. Mr. Waggoner may not legally serve as the elected Mayor of
Laurel without first resigning his City employrnent.
In regard to the Attorney General Opinion upon which the City relies,Attorney
General Mazurek was asked to issue an opinion on three issues,two of which are
relevant here. The relevant issues presented were whether a public works employee
could be a city council member, and second whether a public works director, or any
other appainted city officer,could hold the position of city council member. Attorney
General Mazurek issued rivo opinions,only one of which applies to this case.
Specifically,Attorney General Mazurek held that"a public works employee or
director cannot be a city council member. The positions are incompatible." In
formulating his opinion,Attorney General Mazurek focused on the common law rule
against the holding of incompatible interests rather than analyzing whether a conflict
of interest existed. Mazurek specifically cited a Montana Supreme Court Case that
recognized two of�ces are incompAtible when one has the power of retnoval over the
other,when one is in any way subordinate to the other, whcn one has the power of
supervision over the other, or when the nature and duties of the two offices are such
as to reiider it iinproper(for public policy reasons) for one person to retain both.
State er. rel. Klick v. Wittmer, SO Monl. 22 (1914).
As additional support,Attorney General Mazurek cited a previous opinion(46
Op. Att'y Gefz. No. 2� in which he concluded that the common law doctrine of
incompatible public offlces applies to public employees,as well as to public office
holders, finding that a county employee appointed by the board of county
commissioners, and paid by the county cannot serve on the board of commissioners
for the same county. Id. As final support for his opinion,Attorney General Mazurek
quoted the Supreme Court of Wyoming who specifically found that"it is inimical
(contrary) to the public interest for one in public einployment to be both the employer
and the employee, or the supervisor and the supetvised. Thornas u Drem�nel, 868
P.2d 263, 264 (Wyo. 1994). Importantly,Attorney General Mazurek noted that the
determination of whether other appointed city offices and positions are incompatible
with the office of city council member is fact-dependent and must be made on a case-
by-case basis.
In this case, the sole issue is whether or not Mr. Waggoner's plant operator
position is incompatible with the mayor position, pursuant to the analysis provided by
the Attorney General Opinion cited herein. In my opinion, based on the City of
Laurel's Charter, the position is clearly incompatible with the mayor position. As a
side note, the Billings Gazette recently reported that Mr. Waggoner reportedly stated
that"from what I gather about the structure of our government, I am still answerable
to the council." Further, Waggoner reportedly stated "They are the final say. I don't
see where it says that I can hire or fire myself." Clearly Mr. Waggoner has not
reviewed the City's Charter, notwithstanding the fact he allegedly has an attorney's
opinion on this matter, and has run for the mayor position in hvo consecutive
e(ections. In my opinion,there is not a debatable issue herc.
The City's Charter provides the Uasis for the conclusion the positions are
incompatible in two specific places:
• Article III, Section 3.05 (Administrative Duties of the Mayor): (2)
appoint with the consent of a majority of the council,all department
heads and may remove department heads without the cofisent of tl:e
counci!and n:ay appoint and remove all other city enip/oyees
(emphasis added); and
• Article III, Section 3.10 (4): The chief administrative officer shall not
have the authority to terminate uny city employee, t/:at authority being
reserved to the mayor(emphasis added).
As provided above, under Montana law, two offices are incompatible when one
has the power of removal over the other, when one is in any way subordinate to the
other, when one has the power of supervision over the other,or when the nature and
duties of the two offices are such as to render it improper(for public policy reasons)
for one person to retain both. State ex. rel. Klick v. Wittmer, SD Morit. 22 (1914). In
this case, the City's Charter provides the Mayor's authority to remove or terminate all
city employees including the plant operator position. Secondly,the plant operator
position is clearly subordinate to the mayor position as all city employees are subject
to removal by the mayor. Third, the City's Charter provides the mayor with the sole
and absolute authority to remove all city employees, including supervisors and
departrnent heads,�vithout consent or approval of the council. In other words, the
mayor's authority to supervise and terminate city employees is unilateral and requires
no council conscnt or action. Finally, unlike other cities and towns, the Charter here
vests complete administrative authority and responsibility in the mayor position. As a
result, the plant operator's continued employment is contingent upon the mayor's
continued consent. Ultiinately, if the plaut operator serves also as the mayor, his/her
employment continues until he terminates him/her self. As eloquently stated by the
Wyoming Supreme Court, "it is inimical(contrary)to the public interest for one iii
public employment to be both the employer and the employee, or the supervisor and
the supervised. Thonias 868 P.2d at 264(1994). Pursuant to the City's Charter,
having the plant operator serving as the mayor is contrary to the public interest since
he would clearly constitute the employer and employee in addition to the supervisor
and supervised. Based on all of these facts and the analysis provided by Montana's
Attorney General, the City's plant operator may not serve as the City's mayor. As a
consequence, Mr. Waggoner needs to choose whether to serve as mayor or continue
as a plant operator. Serving both positions is contrary to the City's Charter and
Montana law.
The City also requested guidance how to proceed with this current situation. As I
understand it, there has been discussion regarding the use of a special election. Please
be advised, the City's Chnrter provides no mechanism for a special election. If Mr.
Waggoner decides to serve as mayor and resigns his plant operator position, the issue
is moot. He will take office in January. However,if Mr. Waggoner decides to not
accept the mayor position the City must follow Article V, Sectio�t S.03 of its Charter.
The section provides when a vacancy occurs in any elected office, the position shall
be considered open and subject to nomination and election at the next general
municipal election in the same manner as the election of any person holding the same
office. However, the term shall be limited to the unexpired term of the person who
created the vacancy. Until the next general municipal election, the council must
appoint a qualified person to serve as the mayor. A qualified person is any person
who resides(continuously) within the city limits. In the past, the City has filled
vacant elected positions through an application process that included a letter of
interest and presentation by the applicant during a regular council meeting. The
council then appointed an applicant by a majority vote. I suggest the council utilize a
similar process, if Mr. Waggoner decides not to accept the mayor position and the
position becomes vacant.
The final issue I am anticipating is the term of an appointed mayor. If the mayor
position is vacant and filled by appointment, I am sure the issue of his/her term will
be raised. Please be advised I reviewed the relevant portions of the City's Charter,
Ordinances and Montana law. Based on my review it is my opinion the appointed
mayor would serve until the City's next general municipal (city) election. City
Charter, Article V, Section 5.03, La:rf•el Mc��licipal Code Sectio�z 2.12.070, and
Montana Code Arrnotated,¢7-4-4112. Furthermore, City Ordinance requires all
elections to be conducted as nonpartisan elections under Title 13, Chapter 14 of the
Montana Code Annotated. A general municipal(city) election is defined by Montana
law within Title 13. Specifically, Montana Code Annotated provides: §13-1-
101 (19) "General election" means an electiofr that is held for offrces that first appear•
on a primn�y election ballot,unless the primary is canceled as authorized by law,and
that is held o�a a date specified in §13-1-104. Section §13-1-104 provides (1)A
general clection must be held throughout the state on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday in November. Iinportantly, §13-1-104(3)provides in every odd-nu�nbered
year, the followirtg electior7s rnt�st be held on the su�ne duy c�s•lhe ge�zeral electiorz (u)
an election ofofficers foj•nxurzicipalities reqttired by law to hold the election.
Therefore,based on Montana law, the recent 2017 election constituted a"general
election"as defined by§13-1-104 (3). Further, the next general municipal election
would then be in November,2019. As a consequence, an appointed mayor would fill
the vacancy until the next general municipal election in 2019. In November 2019, the
City would elect a mayor who would finish "the mayor's unexpired tenn." In other
words, the appointed mayor would serve until he/she faces election in the general
municipal election in November,2019. Finally,the mayor elected as a result of the
November,2019 general municipal election would only serve the two year
"unexpired term"until November, 2021,when he/she would then have to nzn for the
full four-year mayoral term. �
;,�
I�e' ect,�li1 ubm�#ed,
If �
, ahi S�ain�e}�z�l���'� __ �
Civil City Attorney
47 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 19
CITIES AND TOWNS - Public works employee or director as city council member;
CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Hospital district employee as hospital district trustee;
CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Public works employee or director as city council member;
COUNTY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES - Hospital district employee as hospital district trustee;
HEALTH BOARDS AND DISTRICTS - Hospital district employee as hospital district trustee;
HEALTH CARE FACILITIES - Hospital district employee as hospital district trustee;
MOSPITAL DISTRICTS - Hospital district employee as hospital district trustee;
LOCAL GOVERNMENT - Hospital district employee as hospital district trustee;
LOCAL GOVERNMENT - Public works employee or director as city council member;
PUBLIC OFFICERS - Hospital district employee as hospital district trustee;
PUBLIC OFFICERS - Public works employee or director as city council member;
MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED - Section 7-34-2120; OPINIONS OF THE ATfORNEY GENERAL - 46 Op. Att'y
Gen. No. 26 (1996), 43 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 47 (1989), 41 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81 (1986), 37 Op. Att'y Gen.
No. 102 (1977).
HELD:
1. A hospital district employee cannot be a hospital district trustee.
2. A public works employee or director cannot be a member of the city council. The positions are
incompatible.
October 13, 1998
Mr. Allin H. Cheetham
Chouteau County Attorney
P.O. Box 112
Fort Benton, MT 59442-0112
Mr. Richard L. Burns
Glendive City Attorney
P.O. Box 6
Glendive, MT 59330
Dear Mr. Cheetham and Mr. Burns:
You have recently asked my opinion on questions which are closely related and require similar analysis. I
am therefore responding to both requests with one opinion. The related questions are:
1. May a hospital district employee be a trustee of the hospital district?
2. May a public works employee be a city council member?
3. May a public works director, or any other appointed city officer, hold the position of city council
member?
Two employees of the Missouri River Medical Center, a hospital district health care facility, have filed for
election to that hospital district's board of trustees. Mr. Cheetham questions whether serving in both
positions creates a conflict of interest or is prohibited for any reason. A public works employee for the City
of Glendive is also an elected alderman and sits on the Glendive city council. Mr. Burns asks first whether
this presents a conflict of interest, and second, whether the two positions are incompatible.
As noted in Mr. Burns' letter, the question of whether a city employee sitting on the city council presents a
conflict of interest was previously addressed in 41 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81 (1986). In that opinion, former
Attorney General Mike Greely held that there is no inherent confiict of interest when an empioyee of the
City of Glendive is also an elected member of the city council. That opinion provides the controlling answer
to Mr. Burns' initial question regarding a possible conflict of interest.
However, adoption of a conflict-of-interest statute in no way abrogates the common law rule against the
holding of incompatible positions. Tarpo v. Bowman Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 232 N.W,2d 67, 71 (N.D,
1975). Because I conclude that the doctrine of incompatible offices prevents a public works employee or
director from serving as a city council member, as well as a hospital employee from serving as a trustee of
the hospital district, it is not necessary to further analyze the conflict of interest issue.
The Montana Supreme Court has recognized that two offices are incompatible when one has the power of
removal over the other, when one is in any way subordinate to the other, when one has the power of
supervision over the other, or when the nature and duties of the two offices are such as to render it
improper, from considerations of public policy, for one person to retain both. State ex rel. Klick v.
Wittmer, 50 Mont. 22, 144 P. 648 (1914).
The doctrine of incompatible public offices eliminates the public policy concerns inherent in the
simultaneous holding of multiple public offices or positions by:
(1) preventing multiple position-holding, so that offices and posftions of public trust do not accumulate in
a single person; (2) preventing individuals from deriving, directly or indirectly, any pecuniary benefit by
virtue of their dual position-holding; (3) avoiding the inherent conflict which occurs when an employee's
elected position has revisory power over the employee's superior in another position; and (4) ensuring,
generally, that public officeholders and public employees discharge their duties with undivided loyalty.
46 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26 (1996), citing 43 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 47 at 165 (1989), which cites Acevedo v.
City of North Pole, 672 P.2d 130, 134 (Alaska 1983).
In 46 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26, I also concluded that the common law doctrine of incompatible public offices
applies to public employees, as well as to public office holders, and that a county employee appointed by a
board of county commissioners and paid by the county cannot serve on the board of commissioners for
the same county.
The common-law doctrine of incompatibility extends to positions of public employment as well as public
offices. See, e.g., Otradovec v. City of Green Bay, 347 N.W.2d 614 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). As the Wyorning
Supreme Court has stated, it is "inimical to the public interest for one in public employment to be both the
employer and the employee or the supervisor and the supervised." Thomas v. Dremmel, 868 P.2d 263,
264 (Wyo. 1994), quoting Haskins v. State ex rel, Harrington, 516 P.2d 1171 (Wyo. 1973).
46 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26.
Unlike the office of county commissioner, the office of hospital district trustee is not compensated. Mont.
Code Ann. § 7-34-2120. Nevertheless, the office of trustee is incompatible with employment by the
hospital district. The trustee position has substantial powers over employees of the hospital district.
Hospital district trustees employ (and discharge) hospital district employees. The trustees determine,
within state guidelines, the salaries and benefits received by hospital district employees. Mont. Code Ann.
§ 7-34-2122(1); 37 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 102 (1977). Mr. Cheetham has indicated that the trustees also
have direct supervision over the individuals who supervise district employees. Thus, an individual serving
in the dual roles of employee and trustee would be in the position of controlling actions and decisions of
his or her supervisor which could directly affect his or her job duties and compensation. Likewise, an
individual serving as a public works employee and a member of the city council is in the position of
controlling the actions and decisions of the employee's supervisor, the public works director.
In each situation, the individual must choose between the clashing duties of two positions, a choice the
doctrine of incompatibility of offices was designed to avoid. Township of Belleville v. Fornarotto, 549 A.2d
1267 (N.J. 1988). Such scenarios are clearly "inimical" to the public interest and thus prohibited by the
doctrine of incompatible offices.
Mr. Burns' third question concerns whether a public works director, or any other city officer, can be
elected to the city council. According to Mr. Burns, the Glendive City Council has supervisory power and
the power of removal over the public works director. Thus, the simultaneous holding of the office of city
council member and the office of public works director presents a concern similar to that addressed in 46
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26. There, the positions of county commissioner and county coordinator of disaster and
emergency services were found to be incompatible as the county commission has the powers of
supervision, revision, and removal over the position of DES coordinator. Similarly, the office of city council
member is incompatible with either the office or the position of public works director.
The determination whether other appointed city offices and positions are incompatible with the office of
city council member is fact-dependent and must be made on a case-by-case basis.
THEREFORE, IT IS MY OPINION:
1. A hospital district employee cannot be a hospital district trustee.
2. A public works employee or director cannot be a city council member. The positions are incompatible.
Sincerely,
JOSEPH P. MAZUREK Attorney General
jpm/mas/dm
� _ 5tate ex rel.Klick v.Wittmer,50 Mont.22(Mont., 1914) �J
5o Mont.22 regular meeting of the city council of Great
Falls held September 2, i9ig--all the
STATE EX REL. KI.ICK members thereof as well as the mayor being
�• present, the said 4Vittmer assuming to act as
WITI'MER. alderman from the Fifth ward--the following
resolution was presented and read by
No.3419• Alderman Johnston:
Supreme Court of Montana. "Whereas there exists a vacancy in the
office of alderman from the Fifth ward,
Nov. 2�, i9i4. caused by the appointment and qualification
of former Alderman J. G. Wittmer to thc
Appeal from District Court, Cascade office of city purchasing agent, an office
County; H.H. Ewing,Judge. incompatible with the office of alderman, I
Action by the State, on the relation of hereby nominate Theodore Klick, residing at
6ii First Avenue Southwest, within the said �
Theodore Klick,against J. G.Wittmer.From a Fifth ward, by occupation a stable boss, to fill
judgment for defendant rendered after such vacancy."
sustaining a general demurrer to the
complaint, the relator appeals. Reversed and 'I'hat said nomination was duly seconded,
remanded. but the mayor refused to entertain the same,
and, on appeal from the decision of the chair,
five aldermen voted against sustaining such
E.A.Smith,of Great Falls,for appellant. decision.That the mayor, however,declared a
Cooper & Stephenson, of Great Falls, for tie by including the vote of Wittmer with four
respondent. others to sustain said decision,and thereupon
resolved the tie by himself voting to sustain
such decision. That thereupon five aldermen
SANNER,J. "requested the recording of their votes in
favor of the nominee--1'heodore Klick--as
Appeal from a judgment after an order alderman from the Fifth ward to fill the
sustaining a general demurrer to the vacancy herein alleged,"which five votes were
complaint.The facts recited are: That the city so recorded by the city clerk and made part of
of Great Falls possesses five wards, and its the records of the proceedings of thc council.
common council consists of ten aldermen, That Klick possesses the necessary
two from each ward.That on June 30, i9ig,J. qualifications to hold the office of alderman
G. Wittmer was, and since April i3, i9rg, had and filed his official oath in due time, but
been, one of the duly elected, qualified, and Wittmer persists in unlawfiilly acting and
acting aldermen from the Fifth ward of said intruding himself into such office.
city. That o�i June goth he was appoi�ited by
the mayor to the office of "city purchasing The questions presented are: Was there a
agent," �vhich office had been created by vacancy in the office of alderman from the
ordinance approved May 26, �9�g. That his Fifth ward to be filled by the election of the
appointment was confirmed by the council city council; and, if there was, was the relator
and he immediately accepted, qualified, and elected thereto?
entered upon the duties of said office,and has
since received and enjoyed the salary attached 1. Whether a vacancy occurred in the
thereto, to wit, $5o per month; that at the office of alderman in consequence of the
acceptance by Wittmer of the appointment as
. . ' -i-
__�__ State ex rel.Klick v.Wittmer,50 Mont.22(Mont., 1914) �_^`
purchasing agent depends upon the power of Officers, § 422; State v. Anderson, i55 Iowa,
the city council to create such office, and z�i, i36 N. W. i28;State v. Thompson, izz N.
upon the nature of the office. No question is C.493� 29 S. E. �2o;State v.Goff, i5 R.I. 505,
raised as to the power of the city council to 9 Atl. 226, 2 Am. St. Rep. g2i; Magie v.
create this office, and we shall therefore Stoddard, 25 Conn. 565, 68 Am. llec. 375;
assume, without deciding, that it had such People v. Commissioners, �6 Hun, i46, 2�N.
power. By reference to the ordinance creating Y. Supp. 548;State v. Buttz, 9 S. C. i56). The
the office we learn: relations between the office of alderman of
Great Falls and that of purchasing agent, as
"The city purchasing agent shall be created by the ordinance above referred to,
appointed by the mayor. * ** His duties shall are ��thin all these specifications. The office
be to make all purchases of sundries and of purchasing agent was not created under
supplies for all departments of the said city; title 3 of part 4 of the Political Code (Rev.
he shall keep a complete record of all his Codes, §§ 32i6, 32i�, 32i8); the city council
purchases, acts and doings, an accurate may therefore, by a bare majority vote,
account of all the supplies purchased and the abolish it at any time and discharge the
price paid therefor. * * *That all bills against person appointed to fill it (Rev. Codes, §
the city for purchases shall be filed with the g22o). Thus the incumbent of it, if he be an
purchasing agent, who shall examine and alderman, may, in certain circumstances,
approve or disallow the same and recommend exercise absolute control over the existence
to the council the payment or rejection of the and tenure of his office, or, in the desire to
same, and report the said bills to the said save his office threatened by abrogation, he
council at its first regular meeting in each may be induced to assent to measures the
month, or oftener, for allowance or rejection virtue of which he does not perceive.Again,as
by the said council. * * * The said purchasing to a portion of his duties he is an agent of the
agent shall, before entering upon his duties, council and subject to its supervision. It may
take the oath of office and execute a bond in disavow or curtail his general policy,reject his
such sum as the council may require, but for recommendations, or disallow the bills
not less than $i,000, * * * the same to be in incurred by him; in any event, as membcr of
proper form and approved by the city the council he is placed in the position of
council." supervising and affirming his own acts.
Finally, if he be alderman as well as agent, he
Wc think the office thus created and may pass upon, and possibly determine, the
defined is clearly incompatible with the office amount and sufficiency of his own bond.
of alderman. Offices are "incompatible"when Further discussion is not necessaiy to
one has power of removal over the other (29 establish that the holding of these offices by
C�c. 1382; Attorney General v. Council, ii2 the same person is contrary to public policy.
Mich. i45, �o N. W. 45�, 37 L. R. A. 2ii),
when one is in any way subordinate to the The contention of respondent is that the
other(State v. Jones, igo Wis.572, iio N. W. foregoing is of no importance to the qucstion
431, 8 L. R. A. [N. S.] iio�, ii8 Am. St. Rep. at bar, because vacancies are created onl}� by
io42, io Ann. Cas. 696),when one has power the causes set forth in section 4ao, Re��ised
of supervision over the other (State v. Taylor, Codes, among which the acceptance of an
i2 Ohio St. i3o;Cotton v. Phillips, 56 N. H. incompatible office is not enumerated. This
220; State v. Hilton, 8o N. J. Law, 528, 78 argument is based upon certain expressions
Atl. i6), or when the nature and duties of the in State ex rel. Chenoweth v.Acton, 3i Mont.
two offices are such as to render it improper, 37, 39, 77 Pac. 299, to the effect that the
from considerations of public policy, for one provisions of section 42o are exclusive; but
person to retain both (Mechem on Public these expressions, unnecessary to the
-2-
r
State ex rel.Klick v.Wittmer,50 Mont.22(Mont.,1914) _�
decision of that case, have not been accepted oath. It follo�vs that the judginent appealed
as controlling since State ex rel. Jones v. from must be reserved, tirith directions to
Foster, 39 Mont. 583, io4 Pac. 860, was overrule the demurrer;and it is so ordered.
written. For the purposes of the instant case,
howe��er,we may assume the exclusiveness of Reversed and remanded.
section 420, without at all aiding the
respondent's position; for, though we grant B�NTLY,C.J., concurs.HOLLOWAY,
that a vacancy is not created by any J.,did not hear the argument and takes
circumstancc not mentioned therein, it docs no part in the foregoing decision.
not follow that a resignation, which is
mentioned therein as a cause of vacancy, may
not impliedly arise upon the acceptance of an
incompatible office. On the contrary, the
authorities are practically unanimous that, as
to an office which the incumbent may vacate
b3�his own act, a resignation does occur upon
his acceptance of another office incompatible
therewith. King v. Trelawney, 3 Burrows,
i6i6; Stubbs v. Lee, 64 Me. i95, i8 Am. Rep.
25i; State v. Brinkerhoff, 66 Tex. 45, i�S.W.
io9;Van Orsdall v. Hazard,g Hill (N.Y.) z43;
Magie v. Stoddard, supra; People v. Hanifan,
96 Ill.420; State v.Thompson, supra; State v.
Goff, supra; Cotton v. Phillips, supra; Pooler
v. Reed, �g Me. i29; Biencourt v. Parker, 2�
Tex. 558;Mann v. Darden, i�i Ala. i42, 54
South.So4.
The respondent having resigned his
position as alderman by accepting the office
of city purchasing agent, a vacancy was
created in the council, and its membership
Uecame reduced to nine.That vacancy the city
council was authorized to fill by a majority
vote of the members then composing the
council. The relator was formally nominated
to fill such vacancy, the votes of five members
were recorded in his favor, and he was
elected--the mayor's position to the contrary
notwithstanding. State ex rel. Wilson v.
Willis,47 Mont.548�133 Pac.962.
If the complaint correctly states the facts,
the respondent became an intruder in the
office of alderman from the moment he
accepted the appointment as purchasing
agent. He certainly ceased to have any
warrant for exercising its functions after the
relator's election and the filing of his official
� . -3-
CERTTFICATENa I
PROPOSED
CHARTER
CITY OF LAUREL,
YELLOW5TONE COUNTY, MONTANA
PREAMBLE
WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, COUNTY OF YELLOWSTONE,
STATE OF MONTANA, in accordance with Article XI, Sedion 5 of the Constitution of
Montaaa, do hereby adopt this Charier.
ARTICLE I
POWERS OF THE CTTY
Secdon 1.U1 Powers of the City
The City of Laurel shall have all powers not prohxbited by the Constitution of Montana,the laws
of Montana,or this Charter.
Section 1.02 Interpretatioa of Powers
The powers and authority of this self-government city shall be lberally oonstrued. Every
reasonable doubt as to the existence of a city power or authority shall be resolved in favor of the
existence of that power or authority.
Seetion 1.03 Restrictions
l. The property tsx mill levy shall be limited to that of Montana municipal governments with
general government pawers, except with the prior approval of the electors voting on the yuestion
in a general or special municipal electioa '
2. No change in any city license fee,user fee,permit fee or utility charge shall be rnade without
prior public hearings,as prescn'bed by law.
Section 1.A4 Charter Supremacy
As provided by Article XI, Sedion 5 of the Constitution of Momana, charter provisions herein
establishing executive, legisletive and administrative stt�cture and organization are superior to
statutory provisions.
Section 1.05 Oath of Office
Bafnre entering upon the duties of office, a11 eleded city officials shall take arid subscribe to the
oath of office as prescribed in Article III,Sedion 3 of the Constitution of Mantana.
3
.
ARTICLE II
LEGISLATNE BRANCH
Section 2.01 Legislative Branch '
The Iegislative branch and goveming body of the City of Laurel shall be the city council.
Section 2.d2 Composifion
1. The City of Laurel shall have a city council of eight (8) members, four(4)of whom shall be
elected every two years.
2.The council sball set the compensation of council members annually.
Section�.03 Powers and Duties
The council shall be the legislative and policy detennining body of the city. All powers of the
City shall be vested in the city cooncil except as otherwise provided by law or this Charter. The
council may override the mayor's veto with a two-thirds vote ofthe entire council.
Section 2.04 Term of Offtce
Members of the oouncil shall be elected to four(4)year,overlapping terms of office.
Section 2.05 Election
1. The election of council members shall be canducted on a non-partisan basis.
2.There shall be four wards apportionod by population following every federal decennial census,
each of which shall be represented by two wuncil members. One council member from each of
the four wards shall be elected every two years.
3. Candidates for the city council must reside in the wsrd they se�k to represent at the tirne of
their election and during their entire term of of�ice.
Seclian 2.06 Chairman of the Council
The council shall have a chairman who shall be ekcted by the members of the council from
among their own nuraber for a term established by resoluti.on. The chainnan of the councit, wh+o
may be called the president ofthe council,shall preside when the may�r is absent.
Sectioa 2.07 Council Procedures
The council shall, by resolution,adopt its own rules of procedure. A quorurn of the council shall
consist of five(5)oouncil members physically present at a meeting ofthe city cauncil.
4
ARTIG`LE III
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Section 3.01 The Execntive Branch
The rnay�nr shall be the chief executive oi�icer of the City of Laurel.
Section 3.OZ Term of Ot�ice
The mayor shall be elected for a four-year term vf of�ce.
Section 3.03 Election
The mayor, who must reside within the city limits of Laurel at the time of election and
throughout the term of affice,shall be nominated and elected at large on a non-partisan basis.
Section 3.04 Powers and Duties
The rnayor shatl:
1. enforce laws,ordinances, and resolutions;
2. perform duties reyuired of him by law, charter,ordinance or resolution;
3. administer affairs�f the local government;
4. carry out policies established by the council;
5. recommeixi measures to the caemcil;
b. repart to the council on the affairs and financial candition of the city government;
7. e�cecute bonds, notes,contracxs, and wriiten obligations of the council, subject to the appmval
of the council;
8. report to the oouncil as the oouncil may require;
9. chair council meetings and may take part in discussion;
10. exec�tte the budget adopted by the council;
l 1. appoint, with the consent of the council, all members of boards, except the mayor may
a}�point without consent ofthe council temporary oomtnittees established by the mayor.
Sectioa 3.05 Admfnistretive Du�ies '
The mayor may:
1. prepare the budget in consultation with the council and department heads;
2. appoint, with the conse�nt of a majority of the council, all departrnent heeds and tnay remove
department heads without the c,onsent of the oouncil and may appoint and remove all other city
employees; �
3. exercise control and supervision of all departments and bosrds to the degree
authorized by resolutian of the council.
Section 3.06 Legtslalive Authority of the Mayor
The mayor shall dacide aIl tie votes of the oouncil,but shall have no other vote. The mayor may
veto ordinances and resolutions, subjact to override by a two-thirds vote of the entae counciL
�
5
Section 3.07 Compensation of the Mayor
The council shall set the oompensation of the mayor annually.
SecHon 3.08 Absence of the Mayor
The rnayor must receive the consent of the council for an absence from the city for ten (10) or
more consecutive days.
Section 3.09 Graunds for Removal of the Mayor
The mayor may be removed from office by a finding, by an a�tive vote of six (6)of eight
(8)oouncil members that,pursuant to law, there is u vacancy in the of�ice of mayor.
SecHon 3.10 Chref Adrnin�stratiive Ot�iccr
1. There may be a chief administra,tive officcr appou►ted by written contract the tercns of which
shall be negotiated by the mayor f�r approval by the city council. The term of the contraet shali
not exoeed two years unless specifically extended or re,newed by rnaj�rity vote of the council.
2. The chief administrative officer shall serve under the direct supervision of the mayor and
shall perform those duties delegated to the officer by the mayor.
3. T'he chief administrative of�cer may exercise such supervisory authority as may be delegateci
in writing by the mayor and approved by resotution of the counciL
4. The chief administrative officer shall not have the authority to terminate any city employee,
that suthority being reserved to the xnayoor.
SecNon 3.11 City Attorney
1. There shali be a chief legal officer of the city, who may be called the city attomey, appointed
by the mayor with the ounsent of the council, who shall serve as legaJ advisor to the city cauncil,
the rnayor, and all city depaitments,of�ces and agencies.
2. The chief legal officer shall be appointed by written oontract which shall specify the duties
and responsibilities,conditions af employment and oompensation of the chief legal officer. Said
cantrac� shall not exceed duration of two years unless specifically exte-nded or renewed by
rnajorily vote of the city counciL
3. The chief legal officer shall represent the city in all legal proceedings unless othcrwise
determined by the council and shali perform other duties prescribed by ordinance. The council
may engage such additional legal counsel as may be required to meet exigent circuinstances.
4. The chief legal af�icer s�all be supervisvd by the mayor and shall have the status of a
department head, exc�rt that he or she may not be removed or susp�deri by the rnayor without
the consent of the city council.
6
Section 3.12 Organizaiion of Departments i
The organization of city depaitments shall be prescribed by ordinance. I
ARTICLE N
dUDICIAL BRANCH
Section 4,01 City Court
There shall be a city court or a municipal oourt as provided by law.
ARTICLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 5.01 Amendrnent of Charter
This Charter may be amenderl only wikh the approval of the voters,as prescnbed by state law. �
Section 5.02 Effective Date
This Charter shall become effedive on January l,2008.
5ection 5.03 Vacancy iu Office
An elected office wx3er this Charter beoornes vacant as prescribed by law. When any vacancy
occurs in any elec�ive office, this position shall be oonsidered open and subject to nomination
and election at the next g�►eral municipal election in the same rnanner as the election of any
person holding the same office, except the tecro sha11 be limited to the unexpired term of the
person who originally createti the vacancy. Pending such election and qualification, the council
shall, by majority vote of the members, appoint a qualificd person within 30 days of the vacancy
to hold the office until the successor is elected and qualified. A person appointecl to fill a vacant
city cauncil position must reside in the ward wherein the vacancy occurred.
SecHon 5.04 5everability
If any provision of this Charter is held invalid, the other provisions of this Charter shall not be
affected thereby. If the application of the Charter or any part of its provisions, to any person or
circumstance is held invalid the application of the Charter end its provisions to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affectecl thereby.
�
7
, �
ARTICLE VI
TRANSTTION PROVISIONS �I
�
Section 6.01 General Transition ,
i
1. Transition to this charter fortn of government shall be as prescribed by state law. The council I
may provide fnr such transition by�rdinance or resolution not inconsistent with state law.
2. The pmvisions of this transition article shall not be published as part of the Charter after �
January 1,2009.
SecHon 6.02 Clty Employees
1. No city employee or elected official currently hold'mg a city office will lose employrnent or
elacted position solely bacause of adoption of this Charter.
2. Existiag eiected of�cials may continue in office unt�the end of the term for which elected. ,
Sectton 6.03 Review of Existing Ordinances
1. All city ordinances and resolutions of the City of Laurel shall rernain in effect until reviewed,
revised or repealed by the city oouncil.
2. The city oouncil shall review and, where necessary, revise or repeal a11 city orrlinances to
provide for compliance and consistency with this Charter and state law no later than ]anuary 1,
2009.
We, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Laurel do hereby ce�tify that this
is the Charter praposed by the Ma}ror and City Council for adoption by the voters
of Laurel. In t�imany whereo�we set our hands.
Done urel,Montana this 4ch day of September ,2007.
ayor �
��'
Co 'de Co ' M er
c er �b
/7t--�
Coun ' Member '1 Mernb
r �"'r+�
Council Member Council Member
AT EST:
City Cl c
8 '